Vince condemns “long, shabby and disreputable treatment” of Equitable Life policy-holders

From today’s Times:

One million savers were given an apology — but no promise of early compensation — when the Treasury issued its long-delayed response to the verdict that regulators were partly responsible for the near-collapse of Equitable Life. Although the Treasury confirmed an ex-gratia scheme yesterday, campaigners and MPs condemned proposals to means-test payments.

There was anger, also, at the Treasury’s admission that it could take “significantly longer” than two and a half years before any cash is paid out. Ministers were accused of using “dirty tricks” to put off payments until after the next election. Justifying the delay, Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that the level of official responsibility had still to be decided.

George Osborne, the Tories’ shadow chancellor, decided not to turn up to the debate to grill Labour over its lacklustre response. However, the Lib Dems’ shadow chancellor Vince Cable was on hand to hold the Government to account. And, as ever with Vince’s statements, it’s well worth reproducing in full:

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): I thank the Chief Secretary for her statement. I welcome the apology, and I welcome more guardedly—because we do not yet know the full details—the compensation principle. However, that comes after the long, shabby and disreputable treatment of policyholders. The endless delay and dissimulation have angered up to 1 million of them, many of whom have lost up to half their pension to the extraordinary extent that a period of maladministration that occurred largely under the previous Government has become a massive own goal for this Government. That makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative shadow Chancellor did not think it worth his while to turn up today—[Hon. Members: “What about the Chancellor?”] Well, I am here.

We are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Prime Minister establishing his reputation as a parliamentary star by speaking for the then Labour Opposition in defence of Barlow Clowes’s policyholders. He made a passionate speech in their defence. A question that has often been asked since is why the compensation that was eventually accorded to those investors was not reproduced for Equitable Life policyholders. The answer was always that nothing could be done without an ombudsman’s report. We now have one, nine years after the company’s collapse, and it is worth rehearsing the endless delays, many of which were deliberate.

The ombudsman said that, in 2001, the then Chancellor’s delay in holding an inquiry was “iniquitous and unfair”. There was then a long period before the Penrose report and the establishment of another ombudsman inquiry. Eventually, last year, even after the Maxwellisation process, there was a six-month delay before the matter came to the House. However, it is here, and the Government have announced a compensation scheme.

Has the Treasury doctrine of compensation not changed fundamentally following what happened last year with the Icelandic banks, when people who had chased yields in high-risk accounts were fully and promptly protected by the Treasury? In contrast, prudent, careful investors in Equitable Life have been kept waiting for a highly uncertain scheme for the best part of a decade. That matters, not just because many of them have retired, but because many of them have died. The issue would never have been maintained but for the persistence of the Equitable Members Action Group, which I commend.

Finally, can we try to bring the matter to a conclusion by having an early debate not just on today’s statement and the ombudsman’s report, but on the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration and the European Parliament’s EQUI report, so that we can look forward to early settlement of many deserving cases?

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.
Advert

2 Comments

  • Are there any lessons for the Lib Dems to learn in terms of pressing for change in the way that Equitable-Life-type schemes are regulated?

    Were the Lib Dems calling for better regulation prior to the Equitable Life issue?

    Holding the government to account is good but the goal of the party is to reach government. Being able to say that Lib Dems foresaw the possibility of EL and pressed for better regulation would go some way (it would seem to me) towards providing very strong reasons to vote Lib Dem

  • don Duckworth 9th Aug '10 - 11:02am

    We are now in August 2010 and the new Coalition Government have made numerous pledges to award compensation to the Equitable Life victims but on July22nd. Mark Hoban announced in the Commons the possibility of a meagre compensation and further dalay to Equitable Life vixtims. This after mamifesto pledges, the Queen’s Speech and the new Coalition Governments list of agreed policies, David Cameron at PMQ rounding on the Labour opposition and promising ” swift, fair,independant of Government etc etc “.
    Where is the voice of Vince Cable now that he is a Cabinet Minister and why is he not attacking the continued shabby tratment proposed by Hoban? Is this to be another case of the old joke, before Vince Cable was CAMPAINING and now he is ELECTED and a Minister?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 31st May - 10:58am
    @ Glenn, I agree that Govt policy hasn't been optimal. With the benefit of hindsight we should have closed the borders in February, and had...
  • User AvatarGeorge Kendall 31st May - 10:47am
    @Joseph Bourke I agree with a lot of what you say above. I've often read of the "productivity puzzle" of the UK. Do you have...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 31st May - 10:33am
    @ Anthony Watts, the EU thinks we should: "...Pursue fiscal policies aimed at achieving....prudent medium-term fiscal positions and ensuring debt sustainability.... while enhancing investment etc...
  • User AvatarPeter Davies 31st May - 10:20am
    "In some ways the English layer of the Lib Dems is there because we are a Federal Party with the Party in Scotland and Wales...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 31st May - 10:11am
    @ Michael BG, I had thought of suggesting that anyone who was short of friends should join a political party! But, I've probably had a...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 31st May - 9:52am
    Thanks, Antony, that's very helpful, to learn of the EU's comprehensive suggestions for our industrial and economic strategy. There seems much to agree on in...